Academic economics, then v. now.

Economistbce5

- PhD students were expected to learn to work alone during their thesis
- Papers with more than two authors were heavily discounted
- Empirical work was based on economic theory
- People wrote the theory and then tested it with the data
- The questions were far more important than execution, correlational papers were taken with caution but not desk-rejected
- Academic economists were expected to conduct themselves with honesty and respect for others

- PhD students were expected to learn to work alone during their thesis
- Papers with more than two authors were heavily discounted
- Empirical work was based on economic theory
- People wrote the theory and then tested it with the data
- The questions were far more important than execution, correlational papers were taken with caution but not desk-rejected
- Academic economists were expected to conduct themselves with honesty and respect for others
- Grandpa

It’s a difficult question. Academia is much more democratic now than before. Anyone from anywhere in the world can access data sets and download the most recent working papers. Before, location was way more determinant than now. Also, I love how easy it is now to communicate and collaborate with others. On the other hand, I honestly feel people have lost the love for truth that we had before. Doing good research that had an impact on the way we think about a problem was our main motivation. Now it’s all about number of top-fives.

Would you go into academia now?

- PhD students were expected to learn to work alone during their thesis
- Papers with more than two authors were heavily discounted
- Empirical work was based on economic theory
- People wrote the theory and then tested it with the data
- The questions were far more important than execution, correlational papers were taken with caution but not desk-rejected
- Academic economists were expected to conduct themselves with honesty and respect for others
- Grandpa

My impression is that very little was known about economics before the 1990s and data came along. Except the broad based, "incentives are good" type of things, what do we really believe in today that was uncovered by the elders?

In a sense macro is still in the trap, they have too little data to test their models therefore they have schools and disagreement about the mere basics of the profession.

The same was true in Physics - before experimental physics starting earnestly in 1920, everyone had his pet theory about how the world works. Then experiments came along and all but very few died.

My impression is that very little was known about economics before the 1990s and data came along. Except the broad based, "incentives are good" type of things, what do we really believe in today that was uncovered by the elders?
In a sense macro is still in the trap, they have too little data to test their models therefore they have schools and disagreement about the mere basics of the profession.
The same was true in Physics - before experimental physics starting earnestly in 1920, everyone had his pet theory about how the world works. Then experiments came along and all but very few died.

There are almost no differences in economic theory between 20 years ago and today. Improved data work has done a lot to understand magnitudes of mechanisms but it has done little to invalidate existing mechanisms or point out new ones.

- PhD students were expected to learn to work alone during their thesis
- Papers with more than two authors were heavily discounted
- Empirical work was based on economic theory
- People wrote the theory and then tested it with the data
- The questions were far more important than execution, correlational papers were taken with caution but not desk-rejected
- Academic economists were expected to conduct themselves with honesty and respect for others
- Grandpa

Let me flash back to this imagined history:
- Most research had no semblance of identification; people would put a variable the on the rhs in order to identify it.
- Most theory was highly implausible and unrealistic, answering the question "Does there exist a model which implies X?" and the answer is always yes.
- Forget publishing in a Top 5 if you weren't in the club, it's still bad but was worse in 1982.
- Almost all empirical work done before 2005, in the age before clustering, looks shoddy now. Work done before 1985 mostly looks like it was done by retarded school children, even if correct.